Jill Abramson ousted from New York Times

5/14/14 2:31 PM EDT

New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson was abruptly fired from the paper Wednesday, sources familiar with the news informed POLITICO.

Managing editor Dean Baquet will take over as executive editor, effective immediately.

The news of her departure was met with shock throughout the newsroom. Senior editors were unexpectedly summoned to a 2 p.m. leadership meeting at the Times headquarters in New York. The news was then announced in a staff-wide meeting by publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

In his announcement, Sulzberger said Abramson’s departure was related to “an issue with management in the newsroom,” and had nothing to do with the quality of the paper’s journalism during her tenure. Abramson was not present for the newsroom announcement.

“I choose to appoint a new leader for our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom,” Sulzberger said. “This is not about any disagreement between the newsroom and the business side.”

In a separate conference call with the Washington bureau, Baquet said he learned of the plans on Monday. He did not specify the reason for her departure.

Abramson, the first female executive editor in the paper’s history, oversaw a period of impressive journalism and robust digital growth at the Times, even as it was forced to endure buyouts amid declining print revenue. She was appointed executive editor in September 2011, replacing Bill Keller.

“I’ve loved my run at The Times,” Abramson said in a brief statement. “I got to work with the best journalists in the world doing so much stand-up journalism.”

Despite her achievements, Abramson’s tenure was marred by tension with Sulzberger, Baquet and Times CEO Mark Thompson, who took an unprecedently hands-on approach to managing the paper’s editorial resources, which was a source of frustration for Abramson. Last week, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, the publisher’s son, submitted a report calling for significant changes to the Times’ digital business strategy.

Most recently, Abramson angered Baquet, and subsequently Sulzberger, when she moved to hire an editor who would serve alongside Baquet in a co-managing editor position, without informing him of the plans. The Times reported late Wednesday that the editor in question was The Guardian’s Janine Gibson. The tension between the two over Abramson’s move further reinforced Sulzberger’s frustrations with her management style, several sources said.

Throughout her tenure, Abramson suffered from perceptions among staff that she was condescending and combative. Sources at the Times told POLITICO last year that Abramson had become a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the newsroom, and described her as stubborn and condescending. Such sentiments were widely criticized as sexist.

The Times reported Wednesday that Abramson had “recently engaged a consultant to help her with” her leadership style.

Sources also noted that Abramson rarely engaged with newsroom staff and was often absent from the office, even when the paper was undergoing a severe round of buyouts in early 2013.

Perhaps in order to address this concern, Baquet told the newsroom Wednesday, “I’ll be around. I’ll be hands-on. I’ll be walking the aisles. It’s the only way I know how to edit.”

Baquet’s promotion to executive editor was greeted with a standing ovation in New York. Baquet, a former Washington bureau chief, will be the paper’s first African-American executive editor.

Both Abramson and Baquet did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. Eileen Murphy, the Times top spokesperson, declined to comment beyond the press release.

In the wake of Wednesday’s news, The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta reported that Sulzberger had grown frustrated with Abramson after she pushed for more pay upon learning that her salary was significantly lower than that of her male predecessors.

In response to that report, Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy told POLITICO: “Jill’s total compensation as executive editor was not less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect. Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009.”

Some high-level female staffers also voiced frustration with Sulzberger’s decision to fire the paper’s first female executive editor. Both national editor Alison Mitchell and and assistant managing editor Susan Chira suggested in a private meeting that Abramson’s firing “wouldn’t sit well with a broad swath of female Times journalists,” according to a Capital New York report.

Whatever the case, the decision to abruptly fire Abramson, who up until this week had been the public face of the paper, was seen by many in the newsroom as a tacit admission of management failure by Sulzberger.

The sudden disruption marks the second time in just over a decade that Sulzberger has been forced to make a sudden leadership change. In 2003, executive editor Howell Raines was pushed out after reporter Jayson Blair was discovered to have serially plagiarized articles.

Raines was unaware of Abramson’s departure when reached by phone late Wednesday afternoon.

“Surprise,” he said. “But I don’t really think I have any comment beyond that. I would just be talking off the top of my head. The paper looks good. I think the paper is very sound.”

No one outside of the senior leadership was aware of Abramson’s firing. Several sources recalled attending events or meetings with Abramson or those close to her in recent weeks and said there was no indication that anything was wrong.

On Wall Street, shares of the New York Times Company dropped by four-and-a-half percent amid news of Abramson’s departure.

In his remarks, Sulzberger stressed that the shakeup was in no way a reflection of the Times’ editorial quality.

“It is not about the quality of our journalism, which in my mind has never been better,” he said. “Jill did an outstanding job in preserving and extending the level of excellence of our news report during her time as executive editor and, before that, as managing editor and Washington bureau chief. She’s an accomplished journalist who contributed mightily to our reputation as the world’s most important news provider.”

“Further, this is not about any disagreement over the direction of our digital future or any of the steps we have taken recently to create and launch new digital products and services,” he continued. “Jill and I agreed fundamentally about the need to embrace new platforms and new expressions of our journalism. She helped a great deal in moving The Times further into our digital future.”

“This is also not about any sort of disagreement between the newsroom and the business side over the critical principle of an independent newsroom,” he said. “While we are all working more collaboratively, there is no one in the leadership of this Company – from me and Mark on down – who disagrees with the idea that our newsroom must remain independent with editorial decisions resting with the executive editor.”

In a statement issued after the meeting, Sulzberger called Baquet “an exceptional reporter and editor with impeccable news judgment who enjoys the confidence and support of his colleagues around the world and across the organization.”

Sulzberger also commended Abramson “for not just preserving and extending the excellence of our news report during her time as executive editor, but also for inspiring her colleagues to adjust their approach to how we deliver the news.”

Prior to taking the helm at the Times, Abramson served as managing editor and, before that, as Washington bureau chief. She joined the Times Washington bureau from The Wall Street Journal in 1997.